I'm not even mad, but it's ridiculous how this kid calls out people for having poor reviews (when they're not poor at all) then smugly acts like he's more enlightened than the rest of us because OMG I READ PITCHFORK THAT GIVES ME CRED when his own reviews are nothing but hyperboleking trolling with a few English 101 classes. He needs to go back to PF and fap to foreign indie records

Again I don't see how the first paragraph ruined anything. Sputnik's Staff members have especially unique writing styles that stood out in some way or another from the thousands of other members. That is why they are Staff. Do some write iffy reviews? Sure, so do most of all mainstream reviewers, at a far worse rate. I don't read Hanson's reviews for technical minutiae. Of all the Staff members, Nick Greer is the guy who's usually analytical/clinical in his approach to reviews, which is completely different but equally effective way to review. I find that John's style is more humorous and personable with an attention to the overall feel of the record in an emotional / stream-of-consciousness "this is what this makes me feel like right now" way. Most of the guys who analyze every sound on a record are typically musicians (being guilty of this myself), who naturally pay more attention to the techniques, tones, and have a completely different criteria to judge a record's merits.

The reason sputnik is awesome is because of the incredible variety of music and information present. From every nook and cranny, every band of every style of music (especially lesser-known independent artists) is explored or pretty much covered in some way, by anyone who wants to write about said artists. I can't even count the number of amazing bands I've gotten into since joining mxTabs back in '99, and seeing ultimately what it has become since. Some of the best reviewers on this site aren't even Staff. There's tons of crappy reviews but the best thing about it is that anyone can contribute to making it and them better, and it's constantly moderated for B.S. The site has grown and evolved so much since it was just a forum of warring metalheads and punks and has definitely earned their credibility, especially as of late. Pitchfork is influential without a doubt, but saying they're a more respected site is like saying just because Rolling Stone is the biggest name in the music reviews business, it must be the best, right?

Yeah it doesn't come off as professional to outsiders and is obviously directed more toward people who frequent the site often, but it's definitely not a bad review. It covers the album well, and I found it thoroughly enjoyable.

I have only listened to a couple bits and pieces of the album so far, but it sounds pretty promising. I bet reading the book makes the album even better.

In the Flame of Error is my least favorite song on the album, and there is no way in hell this is better tha GA 1...it's like we're listening to different bands bodom, but at least we can agree they rule

I think the title track ends the album perfectly with all honesty. It's more of a dreamy denouement than a bombastic finale but it sets the mood perfectly, and it manages to be emotionally draining without sounding cheesy at all.